Search

Region
Country
Firm
Author
Date
to
Keywords
Search

Newsletter - November 2022 - English and Chinese

Unitalen Attorneys at Law China


业界新闻:

中国国家知识产权局关于受理茵蓝朗姆酒等欧洲联盟产品申报地理标志产品保护的公告(第506号)

Announcement of the China National Intellectual Property Administration on Acceptance of the European Union Products including Inländerrum to Declare for Protection of Geographical Indication Products (No. 506)

国家知识产权局公告

第五〇六号

Announcement of the China National Intellectual Property Administration

No. 506

根据《中华人民共和国政府与欧洲联盟地理标志保护与合作协定》《地理标志产品保护规定》《国外地理标志产品保护办法》,依法受理了茵蓝朗姆酒等175个欧洲联盟产品的地理标志产品保护申请。经形式审查,现将茵蓝朗姆酒等173个欧洲联盟产品信息予以公示;上梅多克、圣爱斯泰夫等2个地理标志产品已获得保护,不再重复公示。

According to the Agreement Between the European Union and the Government of the People's Republic of China on Cooperation on, and Protection of, Geographical Indications, Provisions on the Protection of Geographical Indication Products, and Protection Methods of Overseas Geographical Indication Products, the application for the protection of geographical indication products of 175 European Union (EU) products, including Inländerrum, has been accepted according to laws. Upon formal review, the information of the 173 EU products including Inländerrum is hereby released; two geographical indication products, Haut-Médoc and Saint-Estèphe, have been under protection and will not be repeatedly released here.

有关单位或者个人对茵蓝朗姆酒等173个欧洲联盟产品在中国地理标志产品保护如有异议,可自公告之日起2个月内向国家知识产权局书面提出。申请资料存于国家知识产权局知识产权保护司备查。

Relevant institutions or individuals, if having any objection to the China's geographical indication products protection upon the 173 EU products including Inländerrum, may raise such objection in writing to the CNIPA within two (2) months from the date of announcement. The application materials are preserved in the Intellectual Property Protection Department of the CNIPA for future reference.

通讯地址:北京市海淀区蓟门桥西土城路6号 国家知识产权局业务受理大厅(注明:地理标志异议)。

邮政编码:100088。

联系电话:010-62086534。

Correspondence Address: Reception Hall of the CNIPA, No. 6, Xitucheng Road, Jimen Bridge, Haidian District, Beijing (Notation: geographical indications objections).

Postal Code: 100088

Contact Number: 010-62086534

附件1.茵蓝朗姆酒等173个欧洲联盟产品受理公示信息.pdf

   2.上梅多克、圣爱斯泰夫等2个已获保护的欧洲联盟地理标志产品名单.pdf

Attachments:      1. Information of acceptance and release of the 173 EU products including Inländerrum.pdf

2. List of two protected EU geographical indication products Haut-Médoc and Saint-Estèphe.pdf

中国国家知识产权局

2022年12月2日

China National Intellectual Property Administration

December 2, 2022

世界知识产权组织报告:去年亚洲推动全球知识产权申请量创新高

WIPO Report: Asia Drove Global IP Filings to New High Last Year

世界知识产权组织11月21日发布的最新《世界知识产权指标》报告显示,2021年全球专利、商标和外观设计的知识产权申请量仍创下新高,这得益于中国、韩国和印度等亚洲国家的申请量增长。

The latest World Intellectual Property Indicators report released by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) on November 21 showed that the global intellectual property filings for patents, trademarks and designs in 2021 still hit a new high, which is benefited by the increased filings in Asian countries such as China, South Korea and India.

报告显示,2021年全球创新者提交了340万件专利申请,同比增长3.6%。亚洲各主管局受理的申请量占全世界总量的67.6%。其中,来自中国、韩国和印度的申请量分别增长了5.5%、2.5%和5.5%。 在报告汇编的约150个国家和地区数据中,中国国家知识产权局在2021年受理了159万件专利申请,排名第一。美国、日本、韩国和欧洲的相关机构紧随其后。

The report showed that global innovators have filed 3.4 million patent applications in 2021, with a year-on-year increase of 3.6%, and the applications received by Asian offices accounted for 67.6% of the world's total. Among them, the applications from China, South Korea and India increased by 5.5%, 2.5% and 5.5% respectively. Among the data of about 150 countries and regions compiled in the report, the CNIPA received 1.59 million patent applications in 2021, ranking first. Offices in the United States, Japan, South Korea and Europe are not far behind.

此外,在商标申请和工业品外观设计申请数量方面,中国也都居世界第一。

Also, in terms of the filings of trademark and industrial design, China also ranked first in the world.

(来源:新华网)

(Source: news.cn)

 

中国国际贸易促进委员会:知识产权助力外企在华营商环境持续优化

CCPIT: IP Rights help Foreign Companies Continue to Optimize the Business Environment in China

近日,中国国际贸易促进委员会发布《2022年第三季度中国外资营商环境调研报告》。报告显示,今年1月至9月,贸促会专商所代理国外企业在华发明专利申请较上年同期增长约5.8%。其中,美欧专利申请人在华发明专利申请量增长明显,分别达到了约5.2%和4.8%,显示出外企对于中国市场发展保持信心,对中国营商环境高度认可。

Recently, the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade (CCPIT) released the Research Report on China's Foreign Investment Business Environment in the Third Quarter of 2022. According to the Report, from January to September this year, the invention patent filings by foreign companies in China represented by the CCPIT's Patent and Trademark Law Office increased by about 5.8%, compared with the same period of the previous year. Among them, the invention patent filings by US and European applicants in China have increased significantly, reached about 5.2% and 4.8% respectively, showing that foreign companies maintain confidence in the development of the Chinese market and high recognition of the business environment in China.

同时,数据显示,今年1月至9月,贸促会专商所和港专公司代理中国知识产权优势企业在国外提交高价值发明专利申请分别较上年同期增长约40.6%和12.2%,港专公司代理中国知识产权优势企业在国外提交商标申请较上年同期增长约106.1%。此外,今年1月至9月,贸促会专商所代理中国知识产权优势企业在RCEP成员国提交发明专利申请较上年同期增长约45.6%,显示了《区域全面经济伙伴关系协定》(RCEP)实施以后,中国企业在RCEP成员国进行知识产权布局及投资经营的势头强劲,对专利的保护和运用更加成熟。

Also, the data showed that from January to September this year, the high-value invention patent applications filed abroad by the Chinese companies with superior intellectual property rights and represented by the CCPIT's Patent and Trademark Law Office and China Patent Agent (H.K.) Ltd. (CPA) have increased by about 40.6% and 12.2% respectively, compared with the same period of the previous year. And the trademark applications filed abroad by the Chinese companies with superior intellectual property rights and represented by CPA have increased approximately 106.1% over the same period of the previous year. In addition, from January to September this year, the invention patent applications filed by the Chinese companies with superior intellectual property rights in the RCEP member states and represented by the CCPIT's Patent and Trademark Law Office have increased by about 45.6%, compared with the same period of the previous year, showing that since the implementation of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), Chinese companies have a strong momentum in intellectual property layout and investment and operation in the RCEP member states, and the protection and application of patents are more mature.

(来源:中国知识产权报)

(Source: China Intellectual Property News)

2021年中国创新指数再创新高

China's Innovation Index Hits New High in 2021

据中国国家统计局社科文司《中国创新指数研究》课题组测算,2021年中国创新指数达到264.6(以2005年的100为基准),比上年增长8.0%,连续16年保持增长态势。

According to the calculations of the China Innovation Index Research group of the Social Science, Technology and Cultural Industries Statistics Division of the National Bureau of Statistics in China (NBS), China's innovation index in 2021 reached 264.6 (based on 100 in 2005), representing an increase of 8.0% over the previous year, and maintained a growth trend for 16 consecutive years.

据悉,中国创新指数从创新环境、创新投入、创新产出和创新成效4个领域的20个评价指标测算。2021年,4个领域指数分别达到296.2、219.0、353.6和189.5,分别比上年增长11.3%、4.4%、10.6%和2.8%。其中反映创新中间产出结果的创新产出领域的5个评价指标指数全部实现增长,分别为每万名R&D人员专利授权数指数增长16.2%、每万名科技活动人员技术市场成交额指数增长16.2%、每百家企业商标拥有量指数增长13.6%、每万人科技论文数指数增长4.2%和发明专利授权数占专利授权数的比重指数增长3.5%。

It was reported that China's innovation index is calculated from 20 evaluation indicators in four fields: innovation environment, innovation input, innovation output and innovation effectiveness. In 2021, the indexes in the four fields reached 296.2, 219.0, 353.6 and 189.5 respectively, representing an increase of 11.3%, 4.4%, 10.6% and 2.8% respectively over the previous year. Among them, the five evaluation indicators and indexes in the field of innovation output that reflects the intermediate output results of innovation have all achieved growth, respectively, the index of patent authorization per 10,000 R&D personnel increased by 16.2%, the index of technology market turnover per 10,000 scientific and technological activity personnel increased by 16.2%, the index of trademark ownership per 100 enterprises increased by 13.6%, the index of scientific and technological papers per 10,000 people increased by 4.2%, and the index of proportion of invention patent authorizations to the patent authorizations increased by 3.5%.

(来源:中国知识产权报)

(Source: China Intellectual Property News)

 

 

典型案例:

集佳代理“圣象”跨类阻击“傍名牌”注册,成功撤销被诉裁定

Unitalen Represented "Power Dekor" to Snipe at the "Free-Riding" Cross-Class Registration, and Succeeded in Revoking the Sued Ruling

基本案情:

Case Summary:

圣象集团是“圣象”商标及字号的在先权利人,在第19类“地板”等商品上享有“”“”商标专用权。“圣象”商标从1996年持续使用至今,具有较高知名度和影响力,并曾多次在行政案件和民事侵权案件给予法律保护。

Power Dekor Group is the prior right holder of the trademark and name "圣象" (Shengxiang), and is entitled to the exclusive right to use the trademarks "" and "" on the goods of "Floor Boards" etc. in Class 19. The trademark "圣象" (Shengxiang) has been used continuously since 1996 and has a high reputation and influence, and has been given legal protection in administrative cases and civil infringement cases many times.

诉争商标为第41类“”商标,由个体工商户殷某某于2019年6月11日在 “教育;幼儿园;组织文化或教育展览;电视文娱节目;筹划聚会(娱乐);提供体育设施;提供娱乐设施;俱乐部服务(娱乐或教育);假日野营娱乐服务;健身俱乐部(健身和体能训练)”等服务上申请注册,并于2020年2月7日被核准注册。

The disputed trademark is the trademark "" in Class 41, which was applied for registration by YIN, an individual business, on June 11, 2019 in services of "Educational services; Nursery schools; Organization of exhibitions for cultural or educational purposes; Television entertainment; Party planning [entertainment]; Providing sports facilities; Providing recreation facilities; Club services [entertainment or education]; Holiday camp services [entertainment]; Health club services [fitness and physical training]", etc., and was approved for registration on February 7, 2020.

在针对诉争商标提出无效宣告的被诉裁定中,国家知识产权局认为:引证商标虽然曾经被认定为中国驰名商标,但诉争商标指定使用的第41类“教育,体育设施,娱乐服务”等与“圣象”商标指定使用的第19类“地板”等商品,在功能用途、消费场所、消费对象、服务目的等方面存在明显差异,诉争商标的注册及使用不致误导公众,损害引证商标权利人的利益。因此,诉争商标的注册未构成《商标法》第十三条第三款所指的情形,对诉争商标予以维持注册。

In the Sued Ruling regarding the invalidation against the disputed trademark, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) held that: although the cited trademarks were once recognized as well-known trademarks in China, the disputed trademark was designated for use in services of "Educational services; Sports facilities; Entertainment services" etc. in Class 41, while the trademark "圣象" (Shengxiang) was designated for use in goods of "Floor Boards" etc. in Class 19. There are obvious differences in terms of functional use, consumption place, consumer object, service purpose, etc. The registration and use of the disputed trademark would not mislead the public and damage the interests of the right holder of the cited trademarks. Therefore, the registration of the disputed trademark does not constitute the circumstances referred to in Article 13.3 of the Trademark Law, and the registration of the disputed trademark shall be upheld.

圣象集团对被诉裁定不服,委托集佳律所向北京知识产权法院提起行政诉讼。本案代理律师对案情和证据材料进行综合分析后认为:诉争商标的注册违反2014年《商标法》第十三条第三款规定,在诉争商标申请日前引证商标已经达到驰名程度,虽诉争商标核定服务与引证商标核定商品不类似,但具有一定关联性、易误导公众。更为重要的是,诉争商标注册人的真实身份系同业经营者,而并非“教育,娱乐”服务的真正经营主体,其申请注册诉争商标时理应知晓圣象集团及引证商标。

Power Dekor refused to accept the Sued Ruling and entrusted Unitalen to file an administrative lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court. Upon a comprehensive analysis of the facts and evidence materials of the case, the attorney representing this case believed that: the registration of the disputed trademark violates the provision of Article 13.3 of the Trademark Law 2014; the cited trademarks have reached well-known prior to the date of application of the disputed trademark; although the approved services of the disputed trademark are not similar to the approved goods of the cited trademarks, they are related to a certain extent and the public may be easily misled; more importantly, the real identity of the registrant of the disputed trademark is an operator in the same industry, not a real business operator in "Educational service, Entertainment" services, and when applying for registration of the disputed trademark, this registrant should have known Power Dekor Group and the cited trademarks.

法院判决:

北京知识产权法院一审判决:撤销被诉裁定,责令国家知识产权局重新作出裁定。

Court Decision:

Beijing Intellectual Property Court's first-instance judgment revoked the Sued Ruling and ordered the CNIPA to make a new decision.

典型意义:

本案的最大亮点在于集佳代理律师深刻、准确地把握《商标法》对驰名商标“按需认定、个案有效”的原则,同一商标在其他在先案件中已被认定驰名的先例并不能必然成为在后案获得驰名商标保护的当然理由。

Typical Significance:

The highlight of this case is that Unitalen attorneys have profoundly and accurately grasped the principle of "on-demand determining and individual case valid" in the Trademark Law on well-known trademarks. The precedent that the same trademark has been recognized as well-known in other earlier cases does not necessarily become a natural reason for obtaining well-known trademark protection in later cases.

涉外定牌加工商标权纠纷的“攻与守”

"Offense and Defense" in Dispute over Trademark Right in OEMs

近日,集佳代理的一起确认不侵害商标权、因申请海关知识产权保护措施损害责任纠纷案件在上海市浦东新区人民法院的组织下成功调解。本次纠纷集佳介入了海关查扣和民事诉讼两个阶段,帮助涉外定牌加工受托方在纠纷中由守转攻、化被动为主动,最终实现了其诉求。

Recently, a Unitalen-represented case of confirmation of non-infringement upon the trademark right and dispute over liability for damages due to application for customs intellectual property protection measures was successfully mediated under the organization of the People's Court of Pudong New Area, Shanghai. In this dispute, Unitalen was involved in the two stages of customs seizure and civil litigation, helping the entrusted party of OEM to change from defense to offense, from passive to active in the dispute, and finally fulfilled its appeal.

海关查扣阶段

Customs seizure stage

攻方 国内商标持有人

守方 涉外定牌加工受托方(集佳代理)

Offense side ► Domestic trademark holder

Defense side ► Entrusted party of OEM (represented by Unitalen)

一、海关阶段基本案情

I. Basic case at the customs stage

2021年,江苏S公司(化名)以一般贸易方式向上海海关申报出口一批灯具,Y公司(化名)以该批灯具涉嫌侵犯其在海关总署备案的商标权为由申请海关查扣,并支付了保证金。因货物被查扣,S公司找到集佳寻求帮助。

In 2021, a Jiangsu Company S (pseudonym) declared to Shanghai Customs to export a batch of lamps and lanterns in the form of general trade. And a Company Y (pseudonym) applied for customs seizure on the grounds that this batch of lamps and lanterns was suspected of infringing upon its trademark right filed with the General Administration of Customs, and security deposit was paid. Because the goods were seized, the Company S approached Unitalen for assistance.

在阅看材料并和S公司沟通后,律师获知此次被查扣的货物均为涉外定牌加工模式:即境内S公司系接受境外商标权人智利公司的委托生产相关灯具,并依据其书面授权在加工的产品及外包装上贴附智利公司提供的商标,加工的灯具全部出口至智利,不在中国境内销售。

After reviewing the materials and discussing with the Company S, the attorney learned that the seized goods were all in OEM: that is, the Company S in China accepted the commission from the overseas trademark owner a Chilean company to manufacture relevant lamps and lanterns, and, according to its written authorization, to affix the trademark provided by the Chilean company on the manufactured products and the external packing, and all the manufactured lamps and lanterns are exported to Chile and not sold in China.

二、应对策略

II. Coping strategies

根据处理此类海关查扣案件的经验,对于涉外定牌加工的货物,如果出口方能陈述清楚出口货物为涉外定牌加工的理由,并提供境外委托加工方在运抵国的商标注册证书、给国内受托加工方的商标授权书等资料,海关一般会作出不能认定是否侵权的认定。律师为S公司撰写了《不侵权的情况说明》,并向海关提供了相关证据。最终,上海海关出具了不能认定是否侵权的《进出口货物知识产权状况通知书》。

Based on the experience of handling such customs seizure cases, for the goods of OEMs, if the exporter can clearly state the reasons why the exported goods are in OEMs, and provide the trademark registration certificate of the overseas entrusting party in the destination country, the trademark authorization letter to the domestic entrusted party and other materials, the customs will generally make an assertion that it cannot be determined whether it is an infringement. The attorney wrote a Statement of Non-Infringement on behalf of the Company S and provided relevant evidence to the customs. Finally, Shanghai Customs issued a Notice on the Status of Intellectual Property Rights of Imported and Exported Goods, by which an infringement could not be determined.

民事诉讼阶段

Civil litigation stage

攻方 涉外定牌加工受托方(集佳代理)

守方 国内商标持有人

Offense side ► Entrusted party of OEM (represented by Unitalen)

Defense side ► Domestic trademark holder

一、诉讼阶段基本案情

I. Basic case at the litigation stage

在梳理案件事实的过程中,律师发现智利公司很早就在智利、秘鲁等南美洲国家注册了相关商标,并在中国进行委托加工,Y公司的国内注册商标存在明显的摹仿痕迹。经核查Y公司名下的商标数据,发现其还注册有其他与南美洲知名灯具厂商相近似的商标。

In the process of sorting out the facts of the case, the attorney found that the Chilean company had registered the relevant trademark in Chile, Peru and other South American countries a long time ago and carried out commissioned manufacture in China. The domestic registered trademark of the Company Y had obvious traces of imitation. After checking the trademark data under the name of the Company Y, it was found that the Company Y also registered other trademarks similar to those of the well-known lamps and lanterns manufacturers in South America.

二、进攻策略

II. Offense strategy

依据相关法规,海关如不能认定所扣留的货物是否侵犯知识产权,除非申请查扣人确认立即放行货物,否则需要从扣留之日起等待50个工作日,在未收到法院的协助执行通知的情况下才会放行。加上扣留之前的流程时间,一旦货物被查扣,将导致交货时间严重迟延。而S公司后续还有可能继续为智利公司定牌加工。另一方面,海关查扣也给S公司带来了损失,S公司也有弥补损失的需求。

According to relevant laws and regulations, if the customs cannot determine whether the detained goods violate intellectual property rights, unless the person applying for the seizure confirms the immediate release of the goods, it needs to wait 50 working days from the date of detention to release the goods if a notice from the court to assist in enforcement is not received. Coupled with the process time before being detained, once the goods are seized, it will cause a significant delay in delivery time. The Company S may continue to manufacture products in OEM for the Chilean company in the future. Also, the customs seizure also caused losses to the Company S, and Company S needed to make up for the losses.

因此,S公司在和集佳律师商讨后,决定转守为攻,主动发起确认不侵害商标权之诉和因申请海关知识产权保护措施损害责任纠纷之诉,以消除出口货物目前不明的法律状态,并弥补损失。律师针对本案拟定了多层次进攻的策略。

Therefore, after discussing with the Unitalen attorneys, Company S decided to turn from defense to offense, and initiated a lawsuit for confirmation of non-infringement upon trademark rights and a lawsuit regarding the dispute over the liability of damages due to application for customs intellectual property protection measures, so as to eliminate the current unclear legal status of export goods, and make up for the losses. The attorney formulated a multi-level offensive strategy for this case.

(一)确认不侵害商标权纠纷

(I) Dispute over confirmation of non-infringement upon the trademark rights

1、以“涉外定牌加工”为盾

1. Taking "OEM" as a shield

在诉讼阶段,原告首先还是继续主张出口的货物为涉外定牌加工,未侵害被告的注册商标专用权。

At the litigation stage, the plaintiff first continued to claim that the exported goods were manufactured in OEM, which did not infringe upon the defendant's right to exclusive use of registered trademark.

2、以“在先权利”和“权利滥用”为矛

2. Taking "prior rights" and "abuse of rights" as a spear

在最高人民法院“HONDA案”再审判决作出后,针对涉外定牌加工的司法观点有所变化,对境内受托人是否侵权的判断增加了一定的不确定性。为了进一步夯实原告的主张,原告律师还从在先权利和权利滥用角度强化主张:即主张被告的国内注册商标中的图形部分为智利公司享有在先著作权的作品,文字部分与智利公司在先使用的字号一致,智利公司拥有在先权利。根据诚实信用原则以及最高人民法院第82号指导案例确定的裁判要点,认为原告不仅未构成商标侵权,且被告还构成权利滥用。

After the Supreme People's Court's "HONDA Case" retrial judgment was made, the judicial views on OEMs have changed, and it is with some uncertainties to determine whether a domestic entrusted party has infringed upon trademark rights. In order to further consolidate the plaintiff's claim, the plaintiff's attorney further strengthened the claim from the perspectives of prior rights and abuse of rights: that is, claiming that the design part of the defendant's domestic registered trademark is the work of the Chilean company that is entitled to the prior copyright, the word part is the same as the Chilean company's prior used name, and the Chilean company holding the prior right. According to the principle of good faith and the main points of the judgment determined by the Guiding Case No. 82 of the Supreme People's Court, it is believed that not only the plaintiff did not constitute trademark infringement, but the defendant constituted abuse of rights.

3、以财产保全为筹码

3. Using property preservation as a bargaining chip

在立案同时,原告还启动了财产保全程序,法院裁定冻结了被告的部分银行存款以及向海关交纳的保证金。

While filing the case, the plaintiff also initiated a property preservation procedure, and the court ruled to freeze part of the defendant's bank deposits and the deposits paid to the customs.

(二)因申请海关知识产权保护措施损害责任纠纷

(II) Dispute over the liability of damages due to application for customs intellectual property protection measures

对于申请海关知识产权保护措施损害责任的归责原则,司法实践中存在争议。有观点认为,《知识产权海关保护条例》第十四条规定权利人承担赔偿责任的前提是“申请不当”,因此在案件中应考量是否申请不当及产生主观过错的时间点;也有观点认为,关键在于被扣留的货物能否被海关或者法院认定为侵权,如果不能则属于申请不当。正是考虑到了司法实践中的不同观点,本案律师建议原告按多层次进行主张,即:

There are contradicting views in judicial practice regarding the principle of attributing liability for damages caused by application of customs intellectual property protection measures. There is a view that Article 14 of the Regulation on the Customs Protection of Intellectual Property Rights stipulates that the premise of the right holder's liability for compensation is "improper application", so whether the application is improper, and the time point of subjective fault should be considered in the case. There are also views that the key is whether the detained goods can be identified as infringement by the customs or court, if not, it is an improper application. Taking into account the different viewpoints in judicial practice, the attorney in this case suggested that the plaintiff make claims at multiple levels, namely:

第一个层次:主张只要确认不侵害商标权,则应支持原告赔偿主张。

The first level: claiming that as long as it is confirmed that the trademark right has not been infringed, the plaintiff's claim for compensation should be supported.

第二个层次:主张被告取得商标权难谓正当,申请海关查扣自始即构成申请不当。

The second level: it is difficult to claim that the defendant's acquisition of the trademark right is legitimate, and the application for customs seizure constituted an improper application from the very beginning.

主要的理由为:现行《知识产权海关保护条例》第28条已经将赔偿的条件设定为“海关不能认定被扣留的侵权嫌疑货物侵犯知识产权权利人的知识产权,或者人民法院判定不侵犯知识产权权利人的知识产权”,条例1995年版本中的“采取保护措施不当的”已被摒弃。而且被告对智利公司的商标属于明知,其注册商标后对智利公司委托加工的出口货物申请海关查扣属于自始即不当。

The main reason is that: Article 28 of the current Regulation on the Customs Protection of Intellectual Property Rights has set the conditions for compensation as "where the customs is unable to ascertain that the detained suspected infringing goods have infringed upon the intellectual property right holder's intellectual property, or the people's court rules that the said goods have not infringed upon the intellectual property right holder's intellectual property right", and the condition of "improperly taking protection measures" in the 1995 Regulation has been abandoned. Moreover, the defendant knew clearly about the Chilean company's trademark, and it was improper from the beginning to apply for customs seizure of the export goods commissioned by the Chilean company to manufacture after the defendant has registered the trademark.

案件结果

Case outcomes

在本案一审审理过程中,经法院组织原被告达成了调解:被告确认原告在生产并出口至智利的灯具上使用境外委托加工方的商标不侵害被告注册商标专用权,并支付原告一定的和解金额。

During the first-instance trial of this case, the court organized the plaintiff and the defendant to reach a mediation: the defendant confirmed that the plaintiff's use of the trademark of the overseas entrusting party on the lamps and lanterns manufactured and exported to Chile did not infringe upon the defendant's right to exclusive use of the registered trademark and paid the plaintiff a certain settlement amount.

本案原告的另一个诉求是希望以后的涉外定牌加工货物能正常出口给智利公司,而不被查扣。经过磋商,被告在调解协议之外还出具给原告一份授权书,确认原告有权在出口给智利公司且进口国和运抵国均为智利的商品及其外包装或者容器、交易文书、出口报关材料上单独标注或组合标注相关商标。

Another goal of the plaintiff in this case is to hope that the future OEM goods can be exported to the Chilean company normally without being seized. After negotiation, the defendant also issued a power of attorney to the plaintiff in addition to the mediation agreement, confirming that the plaintiff has the right to mark the relevant trademarks individually or in combination on the goods exported to the Chilean company and of which the importing country and the destination country are both Chile, the outer packaging or containers, transaction documents, and export declaration materials.

 

 

集佳新闻:

集佳蝉联Asia IP 2022年度中国知识产权多项大奖 多位合伙人荣登2022年度“中国知识产权百名顶尖专家”榜单

Unitalen Continue to Win Several Awards from Asia IP 2022 China IP Awards, and Several Partners Included in the List of "IP Experts TOP 100 CHINA" in 2022

近日,集佳喜获Asia IP颁发的2022年度中国知识产权大奖(Asia IP 2022 China IP Awards)荣誉奖牌——集佳在“专利诉讼”、“专利申请”、“商标诉讼”、“商标申请”四个领域均入选中国知识产权年度领先事务所榜单,并获评为“北京年度事务所”

Recently, Unitalen won the honorary medals from Asia IP 2022 China IP Awards. In the four fields of "patent litigation", "patent prosecution", "trademark litigation" and "trademark prosecution", Unitalen was selected into the list of China's IP annual leading firms and was awarded the "Beijing Firm of the Year"!

同时,Asia IP于近期公布了2022年度“中国知识产权百名顶尖专家”( the IP Experts TOP100 CHINA)榜单,集佳李德山、黄莺、赵雷、潘炜、郑毅等5位合伙人因其优质的专业服务及海内外业界与客户的普遍认可荣登百强榜!

Additionally, Asia IP announced the 2022 list of the "IP Experts TOP 100 CHINA", and five partners from Unitalen, Li Deshan, Huang Ying, Zhao Lei, Pan Wei, Zheng Yi, were listed in the top 100 because of their high-quality professional services and the general recognition from domestic and foreign industries and customers!

 

Unitalen Attorneys at Law



About the Firm

Unitalen Attorneys at Law

Address7th Floor, Scitech Place, No. 22 Jian Guo Men Wai Ave., Beijing, 100004 P. R. China
Tel86-10-5920 8888
Fax86-10-5920 8588
Contact PersonDeshan Li
Emailmail@unitalen.com
Linkwww.unitalen.com


Related Newsletters